lee wrote on Apr 11^th, 2019 at 4:17pm:


Wear on the reef from what, Lee? It's been there for thousands of years.

You?

freediver wrote on Apr 10^th, 2019 at 9:16pm:



Lemme try, without cutting and pasteing.

There is no evidence anywhere that human carbon dioxide causes climate change.  The idea is preposterous. for many reasons, the two main ones, in my view are:
We do not contribute sufficient CO2 to the atmosphere to make a difference to the climate. Human generated CO2 is a vanishingly small proportion of atmospheric gases, something approaching 0.0042 %. That's less than 1% OF 1%. Australia's share of that? Around 2% of the 1% of the 1%.

We do not fully understand how the climate works and how its various aspects work and interact. Models are models of partial and inadequate understanding of what is modelled. 

The 'extreme weather events' are not new but we know about them - and about more of them - because of vastly improved communication, not because they occur more often.   



That the Greens are all hot for 'climate change' should be a huge warning to all thinking people.

lee wrote on Apr 11^th, 2019 at 10:19pm:


Is that all?

Frank wrote on Apr 12^th, 2019 at 6:17pm:


How about that, FD? No evidence whatsoever. Always absolutely never ever.

Please forgive the old boy here. He does blame Islam, after all.

Feel free to remind us that the biggest threat to our world is the Muselman.

Now we can all get some sleep, no?

Paki gob on a stick wrote on Apr 12^th, 2019 at 8:47pm:



Rising acid levels from CO2?

The ocean is not acid anywhere, even those oceans beside CO2 vents, which you would think would be more susceptible, don't show any acidic levels. Those CO2 vents emit higher CO2 levels than are in the atmosphere. And they have been doing that for who knows how long?

Paki gob on a stick wrote on Apr 12^th, 2019 at 8:47pm:


Actually there are more than 3, one for each cyclone. And do you think cyclones are only a recent event? They just didn't seem to look at cyclones prior for reef damage. So the reefs have been round for thousands of years and have never impacted reefs before? You really should try a search on how long levels have been around.

Paki gob on a stick wrote on Apr 12^th, 2019 at 8:47pm:


No petal. The MSM is not the scientific method. But that's your preferred method of "learning".

Most pesticides are actually plant derivative.

lee wrote on Mar 27^th, 2019 at 6:04pm:


Other than mistaking a word association game with an actual argument, is there any way in which this post is not stupid and irrelevant? Do you ever get jealous of Frank's ability to write his own sentences and still be a climate skeptic?

freediver wrote on Apr 12^th, 2019 at 9:31pm:


No petal.

But I will have have to cut and paste. How else do you show statistics? 

And you don't like that because you prefer a world without references other than your own "beliefs".

From Science Direct -

"Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere"


"The anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 concentration is found to be 4.3%, its fraction to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era is 15% and the average residence time 4 years."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818116304787

Now that is a science paper. if you want to crticise it go for it. But it broadly agrees with Skep sci and others that show 29Gt out of 750Gt of anthro CO2.

Now Australia's CO2 emissions are listed as about 549Mt CO2e.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2018/jan/09/australias-emission...

Global emissions are 37.1Gt CO2e.

https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/12/new-global-co2-emissions-numbers-are-they-re-no...

Now that gives 549/37100 = 1.4% for Australia's share for the year.

So we have 4.3% of emissions are anthro and Australia has 1.4% of those anthro emissions which makes Australia's share 0.06% of global anthro emissions.

Of course Australia's net emissions are less than that because Australia is a net CO2 sink. Which means Australia has no net emissions.